{"id":1174,"date":"2008-05-25T21:23:22","date_gmt":"2008-05-25T11:23:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/slackbastard.anarchobase.com\/?p=1174"},"modified":"2008-05-26T16:31:25","modified_gmt":"2008-05-26T06:31:25","slug":"bill-henson-art-or-pornography","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/slackbastard.anarchobase.com\/?p=1174","title":{"rendered":"Bill Henson : Art or Pornography?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Update<\/strong> : This is not porn, say Henson’s models<\/a>, Paul Bibby, The Sydney Morning Herald<\/em>, May 26, 2008<\/p>\n

Opening tonight at the elegant Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery<\/a> in the heart of Paddington is an exhibition of photographs by Bill Henson<\/a>, featuring naked 12 and 13 year-olds<\/h4>\n

is how Miranda Devine began her article on the ‘Moral backlash over sexing up of our children’<\/a> (The Sydney Morning Herald<\/em>, May 22, 2008).<\/p>\n

Devine’s concern is the sexualisation of children, a project which has allegedly brought together “artists, perverts, academics, libertarians, the media and advertising industries, respectable corporations and the porn industry – to smash taboos of previous generations and define down community standards… successfully erod[ing] the special protection once afforded childhood”.<\/p>\n

Previously in the ascendant, today these malignant forces confront a backlash, one consisting of “parents, feminists, psychologists, teachers, grandparents – conservatives and progressives”. Further, “At the eye of the storm is the current Senate inquiry into the “sexualisation of children in the media”<\/a>, instigated by the Democrats leader, Lyn Allison, and due to report next month”. (An inquiry which is, quite probably, one of the Democrats’ last gasps.)<\/p>\n

However, in what is, presumably, regarded by Devine as a small victory for parents, feminists, psychologists, teachers and grandparents, the Henson exhibition has been closed<\/a>, a number of the works confiscated by NSW police, and the artist himself, as well as the gallery owners, likely to be charged with criminal offences. Dolly<\/a><\/em> (ACP) and Girlfriend<\/a><\/em> (Pacific) magazines, on the other hand — publications which, Devine reports, Julie Gale, a Melbourne mother of two and the founder of parents’ lobby group, Kids Free 2B Kids<\/a>, claims has a “preponderance of 11, 12, and 13 year-olds featured in their pages, along with stories about anal sex” — may carry on unmolested.<\/p>\n

(See also<\/em>: Peter Craven, Sexuality or spirituality: it’s a matter of taste<\/a>, The Sydney Morning Herald<\/em>, May 23, 2008.)<\/p>\n

Art or Pornography?<\/strong><\/p>\n

‘Who would call this art?’<\/a> ask Clare Masters and Justin Vallejo (The Daily Telegraph<\/em>, May 23, 2008). Not, apparently, either the NSW Premier Morris Iemma — “As a father of four I find it offensive and disgusting,” Mr Iemma said — nor Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd — “I think they’re revolting” (Rudd ‘revolted’ at art of naked children<\/a>, ninemsn, May 23, 2008). Not to be outdone, soon-to-be-dumped Leader of the Federal Opposition, Brendan Nelson, reckons the whole thing is decidedly un-Australian (Naked child photos ‘violate Aussie values’<\/a>, AAP\/Herald Sun<\/em>, May 23, 2008).<\/p>\n

Others, however, disagree with the assessment of police, Premier and Prime Minister, at least insofar as the nature of the photographic images contained in the censored exhibition are concerned. ‘Adolescent nude photos not unusual: art expert’<\/a> (The Sydney Morning Herald<\/em>, May 23, 2008): “The naked body has been the subject of art for thousands of years and artist Bill Henson’s photographic exhibit of nude adolescents is not pornographic, an art expert says. The question, said art market analyst Michael Reid, is “have the images [been] sexualised?,” and believes they have not.” Meanwhile, “John McDonald, art critic for the Sydney Morning Herald<\/em>, says there is nothing sexual about the photos. “To me, the big shame is that the only time that we start looking at art and talking about art in the mainstream media is when it’s banned, when it’s supposedly pornographic, when it’s doing something that’s taboo,” he told ABC Radio’s AM (Art community defends naked teen photo exhibition<\/a>, May 23, 2008).<\/p>\n

More considered reflection is contained in Clive Hamilton’s article on Crikey, ‘Henson fracas: Art the victim of child sexualisation’ <\/a>(May 23, 2008):<\/p>\n

Henson is one of Australia\u2019s foremost photographic artists with a considerable international reputation. Much of his work explores the idea of adolescence as metamorphosis from childhood to adulthood. It reminds the viewer of the anxieties, confusions and intense emotions in which their mature selves were forged.<\/p>\n

The photographs in question are of a naked girl, back-lit, who appears to be about 12 years old. Her poses and expression convey wistfulness and ambiguity, as if she is saying \u201cHere I am, as you see me; but who am I?\u201d. Like much of Henson\u2019s work they have a dream-like quality to them.<\/p>\n

The photographs show the girl\u2019s budding breasts, her hips and, in one case, a glimpse of her vagina. Their intention is not to arouse erotic feelings and they are unlikely to do so except in those already inclined to view children in that way. They are imaginative, haunting and beautiful. Although not sexual images, they can be seen as a commentary on the slow, halting and unsettling metamorphosis of child\u2019s body into an adult one.<\/p>\n

However, the fact that the pictures cannot be characterised as pornographic is not the end of the ethical story because the social context in which the photographs are presented changes their nature<\/em>.<\/p>\n

If we lived in a society of sophisticated people with mature sexuality, one that respected children and the integrity of their maturation process, then there could be no objection to the Henson exhibition. Alternatively, if the photographs were seen only by the intended audience and in the gallery environment, the exhibition could fulfill its purpose without controversy.<\/p>\n

Perhaps some decades ago such a world, or at least a subset of the world, existed; but it doesn\u2019t any more. The exhibition cannot be isolated from a society in which children are increasingly exploited for commercial reasons and used for gratification…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In other words, the kinds of images of children’s bodies present in Henson’s work must inevitably be viewed, it would seem, as ‘pornographic’: “In destroying the sexual innocence of children they [that is, the forces responsible for “the sexualisation of children by the media and the wider culture”] have destroyed the innocence of innocence.” In short, no-one is ‘innocent’, and the viewing of images of children’s naked bodies — regardless of the intent of the producer — is a ‘pornographic’ experience. In summary, Hamilton argues:<\/p>\n

Closing down the exhibition should not be characterised as the victory of prudery over artistic licence. Oddly perhaps, if the exhibition had been mounted in more conservative times it would have passed unremarked and been appreciated by the art-loving minority. If artists have a responsibility to push at the boundaries of the acceptable, society has a responsibility to push back. After a decade or more in which children have been increasingly exploited, society is beginning to push back and Bill Henson has been a victim: innocent perhaps, but he should have known better.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Response<\/strong><\/p>\n

As a result of the police confiscation and surrounding publicity, Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery issued a statement:<\/p>\n

Media Statement<\/a>
\nFriday 23 May 2008<\/p>\n

Statement on behalf of Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery and Bill Henson<\/p>\n

After much consideration we have decided to withdraw a number of works from the current Bill Henson exhibition that have attracted controversy. The current show, without the said works, will be re-opened for viewing in coming days.<\/p>\n

Bill Henson is one of Australia’s leading contemporary artists and is internationally respected. His works are held in every leading art institution in Australia and are included in the collections of a number of the world’s most prestigious art museums. The Art Gallery of New South Wales and the National Gallery of Victoria have both recently held a retrospective of 30 years of the artist’s work.<\/p>\n

Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery will remain closed while the current exhibition is re-hung.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As it stands, then, the exhibition is going ahead — minus the offending photographs — although police are “likely” to lay charges against the gallery owners under Section 578C<\/a> of the NSW Crimes Act (1900)<\/em>. If found guilty, the maximum penalty for such an offence “in the case of an individual” is “100 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months (or both), and in the case of a corporation 200 penalty units”.<\/p>\n

Writing in The Australian<\/em> (Porn case is likely to fail<\/a>, May 24, 2008), however, Chris Merritt believes that these and other associated charges are unlikely to stick:<\/p>\n

THE success rate in obscenity trials in Australia is extremely low – and experts believe the looming case against renowned photographer Bill Henson will prove no different. With Henson facing the possibility of indecency and child pornography charges after police seized 20 of his works from a Sydney gallery yesterday, Australia is facing a rerun of the divisive Oz<\/em> obscenity trials in the 1960s and 70s. The case will almost certainly boil down to a decision by either a magistrate or a jury on whether the photographs are obscene… They were seized yesterday using a warrant issued under a Section 91G<\/a> of the NSW Crimes Act<\/em> which prohibits the use of children for pornographic purposes. If charges are laid under the same provision, the fate of the photographs could turn on whether expert evidence can show they were being used for an artistic purpose…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Note that, under Section 91G:<\/p>\n

Any person who:<\/p>\n